🎦 Star Trek full movie HD download (J.J. Abrams) - Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi. 🎬
Star Trek
Year:
2009
Country:
USA, Germany
Genre:
Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
8.0
Director:
J.J. Abrams
Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk, retired
Zachary Quinto as Captain Spock
Leonard Nimoy as Captain Spock
Eric Bana as Nero
Bruce Greenwood as Capt. Christopher Pike
Karl Urban as Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy
Zoe Saldana as Captain Nyota Uhura
Simon Pegg as Capt. Montgomery "Scotty" Scott
John Cho as Captain Hikaru Sulu
Anton Yelchin as Commander Pavel Chekov
Ben Cross as Ambassador Sarek
Winona Ryder as Amanda
Chris Hemsworth as George Kirk
Jennifer Morrison as Winona Kirk
Storyline: On the day of James T. Kirk's birth, his father dies on his damaged starship in a last stand against a Romulan mining vessel looking for Ambassador Spock, who in this time, has grown on Vulcan disdained by his neighbors for his half-human heritage. 25 years later, James T. Kirk has grown into a young rebellious troublemaker. Challenged by Captain Christopher Pike to realize his potential in Starfleet, he comes to annoy academy instructors like Commander Spock. Suddenly, there is an emergency on Vulcan and the newly-commissioned USS Enterprise is crewed with promising cadets like Nyota Uhura, Hikaru Sulu, Pavel Chekov and even Kirk himself, thanks to Leonard McCoy's medical trickery. Together, this crew will have an adventure in the final frontier where the old legend is altered forever as a new version of the legend begins. Written by Paramount Pictures
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 14773 Mb h264 16283 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x300 px 1636 Mb mpeg4 1803 Kbps avi Download
Reviews
Another great Hollywood movie!
Every Star Trek fan knows the ST movies aren't that good. This is because they try to be different from the series in appealing to the mainstream. But Star Trek is rock solid and it can handle some of the absolutely silly scripts we have seen in some past movies.

In this case we have a prequel that recasts the original cast. Questionable, but if there is a lot of story to tell then that should be acceptable. But that is exactly the problem. There was no way to tell a new story without destroying the existing storyline. So they made a new one. Makes no sense right? Well, in Star Trek you can just call it an alternative timeline and suddenly it's acceptable.

The movie starts and any fan of Star Trek will be shocked by the cinematic style. The camera shakes like crazy, lighting effects literally blind you. They can't get a solid shot of someone face or of two people talking. No, they give you shaking closeups with only part of their face actually on screen, quickly switching between the two persons.

The 4 of the 5 first scenes with Kirk are horrifying. In the first he apparently tries to commit suicide. Or he almost accidentally wins a Darwin award, can't tell. In the second he gets beaten to bloody pulp while touching breasts. Then afterward his father's friend just bluntly tells him to join Starfleet, and he does it. Makes no sense. In the third he has sex with a female Shrek-lookalike. I had to press stop again and regain my composure. The fourth is where he has a conversation with McCoy. This is stiff as wood and not redeeming, but the contrast with the previous scenes is big. They throw out some old one-liners but that doesn't work either. In the 5th he takes the Kobayashi Maru test for the third time, while eating an apple and acting like it is one big joke. Apparently this is this movie's attempt at humor.

Here I had to stop the movie for a third time.

Now you have to remember the comments the director made. He said he disliked Star Trek and thus never watched any of it himself. This explains the complete lack of the slow-paced dialogue driver story. Isn't that what Star Trek is all about? Social issues, ethical dilemmas, philosophical explorations. And what about Gene Roddenberry's vision? Wasn't Star Trek to inspire kids not only to be inspired to study very hard on math and science but also to instill hope in them that in the future we would be able to improve our societies and values?

Star Trek was able to do what it did by not requiring the viewer to suspend disbelief in many cases, so you were able to do it when it mattered. In this movie even basic dialogue seems awkward. Why the hell does Kirk join Starfleet? Just one stupid fight? Or just because this Pike guy wants him to? This movie has no story to tell. They decided they wanted to make another ST movie first. Then they had to make up a story: "Big evil ship piloted by the big bad guy is out to destroy the universe, merely out of spite." They decided upon that. Didn't we already have exactly that with Star Trek Nemesis? And isn't that already the most basic SF storyline you can come up with? Khan?

One of the most glaring problems of this movie is the decisions the characters make. You expect all decisions to be reasonable or at least within a certain range making it believable enough. Sometimes the writer may want to move the story in a certain direction and it is difficult or apparently impossible to make the characters sway in that direction. This is where writing skill comes in. But they decided that at any point the story can do whatever they want no matter what. This is why Starfleet can load up their flagship with fresh cadets. This is why McCoy desperately tries to get Kirk on the ship as if he already knows why Kirk has to be on the ship. This is why for example Kirk can take over as captain of the ship while Starfleet judges him to be completely incompetent.

The third biggest problem about this movie is that every dialogue is unnatural. There has been this trend in Hollywood where a natural dialogue is going to be awkward because the viewer expects an artificial style dialogue. People speak a certain way in Hollywood movies which is different from a natural dialogue. This makes them look fake even more.

We all know Hollywood can't tell a story. But what is best about Star Trek is worst about this movie. This movie is to Star Wars as Star Wars is to Star Trek. If you think Star Wars was too cerebral then maybe this movie is for you. This movie is literally intentionally made for people that hate Star Trek. This movie is literally made so that people that like Star Trek hate this movie.

So the big question to me is: why? Why make this movie. Why make a movie that is nothing like Star Trek in the Star Trek universe and even with a recast of the original characters? Money of course. And I don't really blame them. But the fact that they succeed amazes me. How the hell does this movie have such a high score on IMDb. And also on Rotten Tomatoes. WTF is wrong with you people? Look at the insane box office revenue. This movie literally is Star Trek from a parallel universe; a universe where humanity isn't smart enough to get into the industrial revolution even if it hit them in the face. I blame the people liking this movie. They create demand for this kind of trash. Shame on you!
2009-06-11
Didn't feel right to me
I'll start by saying I've been on this M-class planet since before the beginning of Star Trek in the 60s, so this isn't new to me as it might be for others.

While somewhat of a Trekker, I don't speak Klingon, own a phaser, and have never been to a convention, though the one in Galaxy Quest was a kick.

I understand this was billed to be the reboot of the franchise. Maybe it will be, but it wasn't for me. While the movie was OK, it was just that and again I noticed story took a back seat to CGI and too many fights, all to common this century.

I thought the characters were well cast. All of them. Some of the visuals were stunning, but..... and in no particular order.

Cpt. Nero (where was the fiddle) reminded me too much of Praetor Shinzon of Nemesis (not much) fame. So did their huge ships, designed to destroy entire worlds.

I felt like they paid homage to the ice planet (Hoth?) in Star Wars when Kirk just so happened to meet Spock Senior in an ice cave after being chased by several I'd like to eat you creatures.

The Enterprise's bridge looked good, but the rest of the ship reminded me of a dry cleaning factory. Pipes everywhere. And where was main engineering? And the windshield (?), did I see that correctly, that seemed to develop a crack during the ending struggle with the black hole created by this red lava lamp substance. Writers, where are you? On my way -- hopefully for the next movie.

That's just a few things. There are a few more.

See it, yes. Go back and see it again? Wait for the next one.
2009-05-08
Gene Roddenberry is cringing somewhere
This movie takes a venerable series with well developed characters and ideals and completely destroys them. This is the first Star Trek that I can remember that had juvenile and gratuitous sex scenes, sleazy attitudes,and the innumerable perils of Pauline type nonsense. I am not a Trekkiebut do appreciate the genius of Roddenberry. This movie had none of it. I was cringing when they had Crew members making out while about to beam to a dangerous mission. Did an 8th grader write this? In an endless and shameless attempt to put in familiar bits for nostalgia appeal, even ear bugs made a reappearance. This is not a spoiler as it had nothing to do with anything, just like the 66 corvette, and showing graphic details of a childbirth. If I want to see that I'll go to a maternity ward or to Youtube. This flick is not worth watching even if it is playing inside your eyelids. Not even worth downloading from Pirates Bay. I doubt that the writer or producer has any familiarity with the series to do what was done here. They could have watched a few episodes prior to penning this pathetic prequel. OK, I will say something positive. The Special effects are excellent, but sorry, that alone just doesn't cut it anymore. Star Trek reduced to Hollywood formula poop.
2009-05-17
Miserable horror stupidity
Not content to rest on his laurels in boring the world into a black hole with LOST, or writing some of the worst ever episodes of Felicity, J.J. Abrams set busily to his task of eviscerating Star Trek in a derivative, boring, 2 hours and 6 minutes of sadistic torture. With new credits ripped straight from Third Rock From The Sun and Simon Pegg sequences that seem to be taken from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and Romulans who appear to have been extras from The Matrix. Do the makers of this film trust any of their OWN ideas!? Do they have any!? And the staple hopeful tone Star Trek is gone. Replaced by a war slash comedy tone that I would expect only to find in Red Dwarf or Starship Troopers. There are just enough seconds of great action in this film to fit into a great trailer. Yes that's right. That stuff you saw in the trailer? That's it, that's all of it, no more than that. There are just enough seconds truly funny comedy to fit into a comedy trailer. Surprise surprise! For the rest of it, we get people sitting around talking about nothing. Except they are in space... which is, you know, actually nothing. Unlike the New York of Seinfeld, which is, y'know, something. Oh, and did I mention that every character in TNG, DS9 and Voyager and Enterprise is dead? Oh, not dead. NEVER BORN! That's right, Picard and Data, will never exist. Never born. Because the timeline has been re-arranged. Re-arranged by who you ask? A small mining ship. A small mining ship with no time-sheilding has evaded the time-shielded time-police and killed Kirk's dad and destroyed the whole planet of Vulcan. Ri-ight. WTF? W T F!? How did they do away with the time police? Aren't a lot of the time-shielded time police FROM the planet Vulcan, that has just been destroyed by illegal unscheduled time travel of a tiny mining ship? If some kind of deity like Q has disabled the whole of the time police, why is it for such a small reason as destroying one tiny planet. Couldn't the deity destroy the planet with a flick of his finger? Oh wait, it's, you guessed it, Stargate! And why don't we see these juicy Q-type-bady-talks-to-bad-guys sequences?? Who knows.

Star Trek is supposed to be hopeful and inspire individuals to do good in the world. This is a war movie to inspire people to pick up a gun and do who knows what.

Star Trek Zero (official working title) gets a big ZERO from me. Awful, abysmal. One star because they don't allow lower.
2009-05-09
Beam me out (of this movie theater where the new Star Trek movie is playing), Scotty!
For all those who are under 18 and this is their first exposure to the Star Trek saga, I urge you to see the greatest Star Trek movie of them all: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. "Khan" is the standard on which all Star Trek movies and episodes must be measured against. The writers of the new 'Star Trek' movie claim that their inspiration was the 'Wrath of Khan' and would like to think that their new 'update' is equal to the earlier masterpiece. Unfortunately I must report that the new 'Star Trek' is nowhere close to Star Trek II. Quite the contrary, it is a pathetic mess of a screenplay and until you see 'The Wrath of Khan', you cannot understand what I'm talking about.

The new 'Star Trek' attempts to re-imagine the characters from the original TV series when they were young, just beginning their careers. The casting director did well to choose actors who bore a resemblance to the original cast. The writers claim in interviews that they aimed to fill in the back story of the characters by detailing their past histories before, during and right after their initiation at Starfleet Academy as Federation officers. But in actuality, they do the opposite. Take Dr. McCoy, the idiosyncratic chief medical officer—the actor who plays him looks a lot like a young DeForrest Kelley (the original 'Bones') but the comparison ends there. Bones is hardly integrated into the story at all. He doesn't have the humor of the original character nor is there enough of the idiosyncratic charm. In the new 'Star Trek', the character is reduced to a buffoon, chasing Kirk around the ship, trying to inject him with a hypodermic. This is the only time we get to know anything about him.

Now take Uhura. In the original, she was the cool, consummate professional, always guiding the Enterprise through tough waters by way of her technical expertise. Here she is the opposite: unprofessional and overemotional. I was embarrassed when she tries to kiss Spock numerous times in the turbolift after the planet Vulcan was destroyed. Here Spock is trying to cope with the annihilation of six million of his people and all Uhura wants to do is make out! You call that class??? And what about Chekov? All they have the character do is mimic the Russian accent of the original character. How did they make him different or improve on the original? Even worse is Sulu. All he gets to do is parachute down to what looks like the platform of an oil rig where he aids Kirk in a ridiculous fight against some bad guys. I thought Scotty had the most potential of the supporting players. At least he projected the good nature of the original character but it was kind of disappointing when he must rely on Leonard Nimoy (the old Spock) to give him the new warp speed formula.

The new James T. Kirk looks like a young William Shatner but he too lacks the charm of the original. More could have done with Kirk's early days on Earth especially in showing how the future might look. I liked the cop on the flying motorcycle but a peek at a future 'watering hole' seemed quite derivative (check out the first Star Wars where Harrison Ford struts through the intergalactic bar). Depicting Kirk as a rebellious hothead seems part of the original Star Trek lore, but the humor is missing.

The new Spock doesn't at all measure up to the old Spock. The early scene where a very young Spock confronts a group of Vulcan 'bullies' was cute but after that it was all downhill. The problem is that the Kirk-Spock relationship is too heavy-handed. It's one thing to show conflict between the two but when they come to blows, it just seemed so un-Spocklike. Contrast that with Spock's decision to disobey Kirk's command at the end of the "Wrath of Khan". Kirk and Spock are noble characters and somehow the conflict between them seems juvenile and trivial. Or maybe it was a matter of the plot where the stakes weren't high enough. The writers simply did not give the characters an opportunity to display the complexity of the relationship.

Perhaps the worst part of the new Star Trek is the depiction of the villain, the disaffected Nero. I seem to recall that by Star Trek: Next Generation, the Romulans had become a group of worthy adversaries to the denizens of the Federation. But here, the last Romulan, Nero, is a bald guy with tattoos plastered all over his head. All he can do is snarl throughout the movie. Contrast that with Ricardo Montalban's performance as Khan. Again, no comparison! Plotwise, the new Star Trek wasn't clever at all. Beginning with the unnecessary flashback to the tale of Kirk's father's heroism, we're treated to one tired battle scene after another. What's worse is that the film's writers have created a new alternative Star Trek universe. Can you imagine the entire planet of Vulcan being destroyed in any of the earlier movies or episodes? It would never happen. Hey Vulcan is supposed to be populated with some of the smartest guys in the universe and they let themselves be annihilated by a Romulan who looks like a skinhead using a drilling machine that creates black holes!

It was nice seeing Leonard Nimoy reprising the role of the original Spock but I was sad to see just how much the actor has aged. Contrary to all the hype, the new Star Trek lacks the charm, humor and complexity of the some of the earlier incarnations. Go back and check out Wrath of Khan and some of the best of the Star Trek episodes from television. If they decide to make a second 'new' Star Trek, hopefully the studio will hire a group of better writers.
2009-05-11
Bad movie yes. But not because of what everyone else say.
Maybe I'm wrong. I just type what I think. Here it is:

One conversation between Picard and data or Kirk and Spock is more insightful and thought provoking than all American movies produced for the last eight years. Since 9/11 directors are not allowed to make smart movies any more. Actually they only make propaganda films like in world war 2. But the problem is that those films are smart and thought provoking and inspire people even today.

Some powerful people are making the job of their enemies for them. Making the American people dumper. How can anyone believe that Kirk's actions would earn him something other than a kick out of the academy in any reality that such a benevolent institution exist? How can someone abandon a crew mate on a frozen monster infested planet. How can someone linger next to a black hole and fire all weapons on a dying ship endangering his own ship? Because it looks cool? It that what they want to teach? If American boys go to war with mentality like that will they accomplice anything? They'll just going to get killed. Actually all the characters are petty and cruel and act stupidly. Even the last security guard. Is J.J. Abrams that dump? No. he is told to make it that way.

You think that J.J. does not know that the Romulans can warn their people in the past or does not know all the other unbelievable plot holes? He made the movie. And to be fair all of Star Trek had huge plot holes most of all TOS. The plot was always the means to make a philosophical or technological point. Witch here is obviously non existent.

Just like The Vulcan councilman insults his best student (Spock) in front of everybody with no reason and loses him that is how they insult the audience with no reason and loose them.

The point is propaganda films don't need to be stupid and sure as heck don't need to be stupid when they are based on Star Trek. How can you help people protect them selves from terrorist or any treats? By making them dumper and scared or smart and informed?

This is not Star Trek don't compare it with Star Trek. Its nothing. Only Gene Roddenberry can make star trek and he is dead. what he made he made and that is Star Trek.

But there is a good think to come out of it. Peoples attention will be drawn to the Real Star Trek and maybe they'll learn something.

And if you materialize in a sealed tube filed with water you will die. It is worse than materializing in a wall.
2009-05-16
Wobbly camera strikes again
After the recently terrible James Bond film, and the equally terrible ending to the Bourne trilogy, it appears that the "wobbly camera" disease has spread to another franchise with similar results. There appears to be a direct correlation between the rate of camera wobble and the "pace" of the action scene being shot. We all know that this camera wobble is artificial and often done during editing and special effect overlay, but the outcome is the same and it is unwatchable. It appears to me to be a "technique" used today in many films to prevent the audience clearly seeing the shot, the special effects and the action occurring. Possibly because the audience would see mismatches between the special effects, the action being overlaid and the poor quality stunt work. I gave this film a rating of one out of ten principally because the wobbly camera technique is something we now see in many films, particularly films with large amounts of special effects and it is cheating the audience out of the opportunity to see if the shot actually flows and to observe how the special effects are melded to the shot and the action. Do we really want to come away from every film thinking we have been in a small boat in a rough swell? I certainly don't and I now add JJ Abrams to the list of Marc Forster who created the worst Bond film of all time with "jiggle camera" and Paul Greengrass who destroyed the Bourne Trilogy with "shaky camera". Hang your head in shame, this trio had the opportunity to make great films, each carrying their franchise forward and each in turn has been unable to achieve an outcome without the use of "shaky camera", which is an automatic turnoff for the audience.
2009-05-11
Pubescent Trek
I've seen all the Star Trek movies, all episodes of the original series, and all episodes of The Next Generation. When I first heard about the premise for the new film, I had mixed feelings. On the one hand I thought it would be interesting to see how the original gang came together and some background of the original characters. But on the other hand I wondered why they were reverting to the past instead of moving forward with the saga.

The opening scene was visually stunning. And, visually, the film was a treat, comprising a heck of a lot of detail. But when the pubescent characters were gradually introduced running around recklessly with their teenage hormones, I began rolling my eyes. If the casting director had chosen good actors, things would have been much different. Simply put: the actor who played the young James Kirk can't act. Many of the actors were television stars. And bringing second-rate TV actors onto the big screen is never wise.

The other thing that I resented was the young Spock character. The actor did a fairly good job, but what was so admirable about the original Spock and arguably the draw of the original series was his lack of emotion. And using this against Kirk and especially Bones' emotional reactions was appealing. Any show works best when the characters are diverse rather than redundant. When you employ cultural imperialism by making Spock give in to the inferred superiority of Earth or human culture, you not only make things less interesting but give people a bad taste in their mouths. The film seemed to be saying, "Let's test Spock's logic by destroying inferior planet Vulcan and his mom and have him finally give into our superior human ways by showing lots of emotion." What adolescent stupidity! Finally, time travel has been done too much in Star Trek films. The story could have been just as good if the Enterprise had encountered a formidable ship from an alien race of the present. They did it obviously just so that they could have the older Spock in the movie. I thought it would have been better had they just opened with the old Spock as a narrator, reminiscing about old times and then saying, "I bet you are wondering how it all came together and how the original crew came together on our first mission." And then the movie goes into the story.

To sum it up, visually the movie was fun at times. But with annoying teenage recklessness, bad acting, Spock's outbursts, cultural imperialism, and tired time travel, this was a bad Star Trek movie.
2009-05-21
I don't know what that was. But it wasn't Trek.
I was actually glad to see some of the negative reactions here, because I thought I might be alone in my dislike for this movie.

Everyone around me at the premier seemed to be cheering. But I just felt a little sick inside.

As one reviewer said, Trek was at its best when it expected an audience to think. Not to just switch off their brains and enjoy the pretty explosions. This isn't "Independence Day", for crying out loud.

There are dozens of problems with the movie, but the biggest one is the script. I'll say this for the actors. They all tried very hard, and they really put a lot of effort into it. Good on them.

But the script and the story are just ... awful. Dumb. With plot holes so large I could fly a ship through them.

There's problems with the sense of scale. The writers don't seem to realise how big space is. Travelling at warp speeds, and being able to stop on a proverbial dime. Shooting a capsule down to a planet, and randomly finding the one person within walking distance of its landing spot.

And scenes like monster1 chasing our hero, only to see it chomped by larger monster2, means that you think ripping off George Lucas's "Phantom Menace" is probably a good idea.

For those who *really* like their Trek, (and by that, I mean the sort of people who know what's involved in ship to ship warp-transports, and what the maximum range of a transporter is in the 24th century) there'll be even more to drive you nuts. If you were the sort of person who watched Generations and said "Just dump the warp core! WTF?" you'll probably have more problems than I can mention here.

Finally, this movie is the ultimate reset button. (Something I never liked in the series, where it was usually used in Voyager). If you like your comics, you might know what I mean when I say, this is Star Treks "Brand New Day".

Personally, I think this is the last Trek movie.
2009-04-16
And I had such great expectations.....
I must admit that I had goosebumps at the beginning. Wow, I really love Star Trek, that is, the Star Trek I grew up with.... Picard, Riker, Data...Furthermore, all the past Star Trek movies are great, so this one will also be good...Or will it?!? As a recent thing, I begun watching the original Star Trek series, with Kirk and Spock. You can imagine, when I heard about this movie, I was thrilled :)

So, what about this movie? Well, it is quite bad, with no Star Trek feeling in it. Though, I know why it made so great at the box office. It is because people love this kind of movies. But if you are a hard core ST fan, it's really hard to chew it.

Spoilers, don't read if you haven't seen it!

My personal list of mistakes.

1)First mistake is that you lose half a movie because of character development.

2) Captain Pike had no first officer? The humanity was left with a bunch of raw cadets. Please consider today's armed forces. Where the hell, on this earth, all the experienced troops go out to war leaving their homeland unprotected. Anyway, I would imagine Pike could never promote a cadet like that. BUT hey, the movie has only 2 HOURS and at the end Kirk must be captain, you get the point :)))

3)Then, of course, Chekov loses Spock's mother in the most idiotic scene I have ever seen. By the way, anyone noticed how the transporters take FOREVER to dematerialize?

4)The romulans were digging up the planets with some sort of a chained drill (how ancient is that?). I'm just wondering, maybe(though very unlikely) there were no space ships around to disable that drill, but I would AT LEAST expect some sort of interceptors to be a last line of defense, for any planet. The only defense of Vulcan were 3 cadets jumping with parachutes? Give me a f***ing break please! And you could also stop and think why would a mining drill prevent teleportation and communications? Or was this forced in just to have the "exciting" parachute jump?

5) Kirk's mutiny made him end up on the same planet as the old Spock and Scotty. That is really cool and original...WOW, good call there. They found each other, probably, within hours, on a very hostile planet :)). Again, I must remind you, the movie is short, we must have a full crew by the end. Nevermind on how we do that ;)

6) Red matter?!? I missed that...Never heard of it. Hell, that's some powerful stuff. Again please, how did you come up with it? And if one drop was that powerful, why was Spock carrying like a tone of it?

7) Old Spock failed, to save the Romulan homeland, because...he arrived TOO late. Anyone here thinks they should have come up with a better story?

8) Nero, instead of destroying Earth goes after Spock? Yeah, of course... Anyway, nice looking mining ship you got there Nero, with lots of ammo on board. Apparently it can destroy entire fleets. Not too safe inside though, dangerous walkways, one wrong step and you're gone...

9) Kirk and Spock, they only sent those 2 on the enemy ship, instead of a trained assault team. 10, 20, 30 men...Give them hell, but noooo, instead we get an overrated shoot'em up comedy.

There is other stuff wrong, but hey, if you liked it, no matter what I think.

Good sound and effects in this movie. I must rate it a 3.
2009-05-11
📹 Star Trek full movie HD download 2009 - Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Ben Cross, Winona Ryder, Chris Hemsworth, Jennifer Morrison, Rachel Nichols - USA, Germany. 📀
×